Category Archives: Congress

Updated Simpson Bowles Plan versus the February 2013 CBO Report

Posted on by
9

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson have just released an updated version of their two year old plan to bring our national debt under control.  The new plan is called A Bipartisan Path Forward to Securing America’s Future.   It is very worthwhile to compare their new plan with a recent Report from the Congressional Budget Office.

Bowles and Simpson propose additional deficit reduction of $2.4 trillion over 10 years (which includes the $1.1 trillion in the sequester cuts currently scheduled to take effect on March 1, 2013).  This would have the effect of reducing the national debt from its current level of 76% of GDP in 2013 to 73% in ten years.  The CBO report presents three different scenarios.  Their middle route would require an additional $2 trillion in deficit reduction over and above current law (i.e. assuming  that the $1.1 trillion in sequester spending cuts will take place as scheduled).  This CBO middle route would reduce the Debt/GDP ratio to 67% by 2023.

In other words, for an additional deficit reduction of $700 billion over ten years, we’ll get an additional 6% of Debt/GDP reduction.  These numbers have huge practical significance.  Simpson-Bowles says that we need an additional $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction over and above the sequester cuts, which presumably will soon be enacted,  just to stabilize the national debt over a ten year period at the historically very high level of 73% of GDP.  That’s $130 billion a year for ten years.  Many people are complaining about the approximately 5% cuts in discretionary spending which will be required by the sequester.  But just to stabilize, not really shrink, the Debt/GDP ratio over ten years will require more than twice as much deficit reduction as the sequester.

To even mildly shrink the Debt/GDP ratio to 67% by 2023 will require yet an additional deficit reduction of $70 billion per year.  In other words, we will essentially have to triple the size of the sequester effect in order to achieve real debt reduction over ten years.  And all of this assumes favorable economic conditions such as steady growth and continued low inflation.

Do our national leaders have the will to do what should be easily understood as needed by anyone looking at the numbers with any degree of objectivity?  Let’s hope so because the future of our country depends on it!

The Connection between Business Investment and Unemployment, Revisited

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post I discussed the very close inverse relationship between business investment and unemployment pointed out by John Taylor in his February 4, 2013 blog entry.  Paul Krugman pointed out that that investment can be subdivided into residential and nonresidential components and that residential investment shrunk dramatically during the Great Recession.  According to Krugman, this invalidates Taylor’s conclusion that the best way to boost the economy is to boost business investment.

But Taylor has done further analysis which shows that it is the nonresidential component of total fixed investment which has the very close inverse relationship with unemployment, not the residential component.

In other words, the best way to boost the economy, and thereby increase employment, is to stop giving excuses for our slow recovery because of low housing prices and to motivate businesses in general to increase investment.  There are various ways to do this, as pointed out by many commentators including myself and, the important thing, is to increase movement in this direction.

The Connection between Business Investment and Unemployment

Posted on by
Reply

The Stanford economist, John Taylor, has pointed out in the February 4, 2013 entry of his blog, Economics One, the strikingly close correlation between business investment and the national unemployment rate. His graph shows that since 1990, whenever business investment increases, then the unemployment rate starts to fall with only a short time lag.  And, vice-versa, when business investment starts to fall, then the unemployment rate starts to increase.

It seems like plain common sense, then, that a very good way to boost the economy and thereby create more jobs, is to figure out how to motivate businesses to increase their rates of investment.  One way to accomplish this is to let businesses speed up their tax deductions for capital investment.  Of course, the best way of all would be to completely eliminate the corporate income tax.

Approximately 10% of federal tax revenue comes from the corporate income tax.  This amounts to roughly $250 billion per year.  Such a loss of federal revenue could easily be balanced by closing loopholes and deductions for high income taxpayers.  Such a shift in federal taxation would provide an enormous boost to the economy.

Making our economy grow faster is the key to solving both our very serious economic (putting people back to work) and fiscal (shrinking our federal deficit) problems.  Any and all ways to get this done should be the top priority of our national political leaders.

The Stark Budget Choices Now Before Congress

Posted on by
2

The Congressional Budget Office has just released a new report, “Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths” concerning several decisions which Congress will have to make in the very near future, pertaining to the sequester budget cuts of $1.1 trillion over ten years, approving a budget for the remainder of the current 2013 fiscal year and raising the federal debt limit.

The first page of the CBO report conveys the basic message with a single graph.  If the sequester is cancelled and there is perhaps even additional deficit spending in the near term, it will give the economy a small boost in 2014 but cause a drop in GDP of close to 1% by the year 2023.

If the deficit is decreased by an additional $2 trillion over 10 years, beyond the spending cuts required by the sequester, the economy will take a small hit in 2014 but will receive a boost of close to 1% by 2023.  An additional deficit reduction of $2 trillion over 10 years, will cause a greater immediate hit to the economy but produce a much more substantial boost of almost 2% by 2023.

An excellent summary of the CBO report, including political implications, is given by the Wall Street Journal on February 6, 2013.  For example, it is the last scenario above, an additional $4 trillion deficit reduction over ten years, which would put the US on a path to achieve a balance budget by 2023.

Under current law, with no additional deficit reduction in the future beyond the sequester which takes effect on March 1, the annual deficit will shrink for the next three years but then resume a steady climb back to $1 trillion by 2023 and the publicly held national debt will climb from its current level of 73% of GDP to 77% of GDP by 2023.

The choice now before Congress is thus very clear:  should we continue kicking the fiscal can down the road, as the Keynesian economists want to do, or should we bite the bullet, take a small immediate hit to the economy, and thereby put the future of our country on a sound financial basis?

To me the answer is clear as clear can be.  But it will require our national leaders to stand up and be counted.  Do enough of them have the political courage to do what needs to be done?

Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt

Posted on by
4

In an Op Ed article last fall in the Wall Street Journal two former Congressmen, Chris Cox and Bill Archer, point out that the total US government debt, now over $16 trillion, is only a fraction of the total unfunded liabilities of the government, which now exceed $87 trillion.  The unfunded liabilities represent future expected payments for Social Security, Medicare benefits for currently employed workers as well as current retirees and also the future retirement benefits of current federal employees and retirees.

If this enormous sum of already obligated future payouts is not bad enough, even scarier is the rate of growth of these unfunded liabilities.  In calendar year 2011, the accrued expense was $7 trillion, double the entire current revenue of the federal government of about $3.5 trillion.  In other words this awful problem is getting much worse every year.

The House Republican majority is trying to address our almost incomprehensibly bad debt problem.  Will they be able to generate enough public support to force the Senate and the President to take the problem seriously?  Right now the odds do not look very good for effective action to be taken.  An enormous crisis is almost on our doorsteps.  How bad will it have to get before public opinion demands action?  It is very hard to remain optimistic about the future of our country when we appear to lack the collective will to take the action which is so obviously needed

The Great Reset

Posted on by
4

 

The Great Recession ended almost four years ago, in June 2009, and growth in the US economy has been an anemic 2% annually since then.  The unemployment rate, now 7.8% is dropping only very slowly and millions of workers are still unemployed or underemployed.  If this isn’t bad enough already, knowledgeable experts are now predicting (see the Friday January 25 Omaha World Herald)  that many mid-skill, mid-pay jobs will never return largely because of the rapidly accelerating use of technology in all aspects of our lives.
Faster economic growth would not only provide more jobs but would also increase tax revenue and therefore shrink the deficit.  If such traditional measures as lower tax rates, deregulation and aggressively promoting foreign trade won’t fly politically which, of course, is very disappointing, then we need to consider other measures which could gain political support.  A good place to start is to enact The Startup Act of 2011 proposed by the Kauffman Foundation.
The Startup Act proposes: 1) more visas for entrepreneurs and Green cards given out with STEM degrees, 2) tax incentives for startup investments, 3) speeding up the patent process for entrepreneurs and 4) relaxing the regulatory burden on startup businesses.  Such measures as these need not be expensive to undertake and could give our economy a big boost.
Our leadership role in world affairs depends on our economic, military and cultural dominance.  First and foremost is our economic strength.  It is vital to speed up the growth of our economy.  Any and all means to accomplish this should be considered.  The status quo is not acceptable!

Is inequality Holding Back the Recovery?

Posted on by
2

                

The Nobel prize-winning Keynesian economist, Joseph Stiglitz, claims in the January 20, 2013 New York Times, that “Inequality is holding back the recovery”.  He says that the most important reason is because the middle class is too weak to support the consumer spending we need.  And that the weakness of the middle class is holding back tax receipts.  And that we are squandering our young who are increasingly unable to get an education without borrowing huge sums of money.

Many liberals deplore the slow rate of economic growth since the recession ended in June 2009 and all of the problems it creates and exacerbates such as high unemployment and lower tax revenue to support public services.  What these liberals amazingly fail to understand is that there are tried and true methods to promote economic growth.  What we need to do is to lower tax rates (offset by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes), remove or diminish the enormous new regulatory burdens which have recently been placed on the economy, boost domestic energy production and aggressively, rather than halfheartedly, pursue new trade agreements to lower the barriers to free trade.

Powerful trends such as globalization and computer technology are driving economic progress and causing the inequality which Stiglitz and many others deplore.  We need to embrace these trends and use them to our advantage.  The way to boost the middle class is to boost our stagnant economy in the tried and true ways which have worked in the past.  The way to boost postsecondary education is to recognize that there are many high quality and low cost schools all over the country.  And that it is not necessary to borrow lots of money to get a good education. 

In short, the solution to the urgent and critical economic and fiscal problems we are now facing lies entirely under our control.  All we need are national leaders who have the vision, capability and fortitude to lead the way.

The Magnitude of the Mess We’re In

Posted on by
Reply

In an opinion piece last fall in the Wall Street Journal, George Schultz, and several colleagues from Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, very cogently describe the horrendous economic and fiscal mess in which the United States is now embedded.  Trillion dollar deficits for four years in a row, now going on five, a persistently weak recovery from the great recession of 2008, several rounds of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve now totaling over three trillion dollars, and worst of all, a complete lack of consensus by political leaders on how to respond to this dangerous situation.

The President and the Democratic majority in the Senate, flush with victory after the November 2012 elections, believe that they have a mandate to continue their present expansionist policies.  The Republican majority in the House of Representatives, only slightly diminished by the 2012 elections, feels equally strongly that it has a mandate to continue applying the brakes.  As a fiscal conservative I agree with the Republicans that we must return to the sound fiscal and monetary policies advocated so eloquently in the above WSJ article.

What strategy can the House Republican’s follow to move federal policy in this direction?  House Speaker John Boehner has suggested that any increase in the debt limit be matched dollar for dollar by cuts in federal spending over a ten year period.  For example, the “Boehner Rule” would require that an increase in the debt limit of $1 trillion, enough to last about one year, would be offset by spending cuts of $100 billion a year for 10 years.  If such a regimen were then repeated a year from now, another $100 billion in spending cuts per year would be needed as well, and so on.

Taking into account the baseline budgeting process in Congress, whereby budgets are automatically increased from one year to the next by the anticipated rate of inflation, and also the occasional need for emergency appropriations to cover natural disasters and other dire events, the Boehner Rule would have the likely effect of holding spending approximately constant from one year to the next in absolute terms.  While this is not the same as what most people would understand by actual spending cuts, nevertheless it does represent significant restraint in federal spending, compared to recent patterns.

As the economy continues on its current growth trajectory of about 2% per year, this would mean that new tax revenues would eventually catch up with relatively flat spending levels and eventually lead to a balanced budget.

It sounds good but does he mean it?

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s Omaha World Herald, Representative Lee Terry explains why he voted against the fiscal cliff deal just approved by Congress a few days ago.  It is because “raising taxes with little to no spending cuts does not make for a balanced agreement.”

Of course he is entirely correct in this assessment.  But will he stand firm in the next two months as a new deal is negotiated to either implement or replace sequestration which makes across the board spending cuts?  Will he stand firm when conservatives complain about cutting defense and liberals complain about cutting social programs?  Will be stand firm when the AARP complains about cutting entitlements?  We need to do all of these things and more!

House Speaker John Boehner has said that Republicans will be “singularly focused on the deficit and the debt” in the next two months.  But the President has said that he will not “play games” with raising our nation’s debt limit.  Will Mr. Boehner, Mr. Terry and the Republican majority in the House be prepared to withstand withering criticism from the mainstream press if the default deadline grows close without agreement for significant spending cuts?

We are rapidly approaching the moment of truth.  The future of our country depends on the fiscal responsibility of our national leaders.  Let’s hope that enough of them are made of the right stuff!

One Cheer for Lee Terry

Posted on by
6

Congress has averted the immediate Fiscal Cliff but no significant action was taken to address our long term fiscal problems.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the deficit will shrink slightly below $1 trillion for a few years and then continue its inexorable rise. The can was kicked down the road for two months by delaying sequestration until March 1.  In other words this was a bad deal and Republicans in the House of Representatives should have voted it down and held out for a much better deal.

At least, Nebraska’s 2nd District Congressman, Lee Terry, voted against it.  Speaker John Boehner declared that the new 113th Congress would make the federal debt and deficit its singular focus.  Let’s hope that Mr. Boehner means what he says and that Mr. Terry supports him when the chips are down.

One year ago Mr. Terry voted to extend the payroll tax holiday for two months (annual cost $110 billion) and then voted against a full year extension two months later, after the die was cast.  Shenanigan’s like this are unacceptable and should be interpreted as complacency and deviousness about addressing serious problems.

House Republicans are in an incredibly difficult position.  We’ve just re-elected a President whose basic economic policy is more artificial stimulus (government spending), which just makes the deficit and debt that much worse.  The Republican House is now the sole bastion of common sense economic and fiscal policy.  We have to hold their feet to the fire.  Our survival as a strong nation depends on it.